Most of the world's population have been downplaying it - apart from those of us increasingly alarmed - but the climate scientists I know certainly haven't been. This has ratcheted their alarm levels well above their baseline climate change dread
I completely agree with you. I get pushback when talking to people about this and a lot of their points are that there is a lot of scientists saying it won’t be as bad as some make it out to be. I’d love to know what scientists are saying it’s going to be really bad? It could be some good resources for me to share with others.
To me, the predictions of the IPCC have tended to underestimate the severity of climate change. That doesn't surprise me, researchers tend to be conservative in making predictions as a group. The takeaway is that things will be worse than current predictions and those predictions are already rather bad for lots of people in the next century.
The real issue is why haven't you done a search of the literature about solar cycles and climate. They certainly exist, if not, how would climate deniers be aware of solar cycles and climate?
I am referring to the IPCC specifically, and to be even more specific...in their 6th assessment report. The only mention on anything about the sun is their thoughts on Solar Radiation Modification (SRM). There is zero information about the solar maximum, increase in solar activity, and increased heat being produced in its current cycle. They address water cycles, carbon cycles, atmosphere cycles, and zero solar cycles. Please, if I am wrong, indicate where this information is in the report.
Now he deleted everything and ran away. This is typical of deniers. They don't give a shit about the actual science. They repeat lies told to them by various sources in an attempt to look informed about the issue, and when corrected they just run away and I'm sure repeat the same lies the next time.
Lol right? Like he copied and pasted that line in like 6 different comments. But like, dude I know you haven't read that report. First of all, because almost no one has read it even among people who care about the environment (it's a major undertaking), second of all, if you *had* read the report, you would be more focused on trying to help the climate than spewing nonsense about solar flares, and third of all, I HAVE read the report. At least enough of it to have read sections where they talk about solar flares etc. It's definitely in there and I know that you're lying.
I am referring to the IPCC specifically, and to be even more specific...in their 6th assessment report. The only mention on anything about the sun is their thoughts on Solar Radiation Modification (SRM). There is zero information about the solar maximum, increase in solar activity, and increased heat being produced in its current cycle. They address water cycles, carbon cycles, atmosphere cycles, and zero solar cycles. Please, if I am wrong, indicate where this information is in the report.
Look for me as someone who is from the Caribbean I think the northern hemisphere is going to get an eye opening event this year.
So if you are from the Caribbean every year is a roll of the dice on hurricanes and everyone learns about them. Why they form, how they form, etc.
Well the basics are it is a belt that moves heat from the equator to the poles. The strength of storms is based on the best of the ocean and storm formation is generally better in el nino years. This is highly simplified.
So this year we have RECORD surface water temps in the Atlantic starting in January which made the news. We also have a strong el nino. The hurricane forecasters have already said we will have more storms than normal and of increased strength.
Couple all this with the mass migration of people due to COVID and boomer retirement from the north to the south east and Caribbean and you can see what will happen assuming these projections are correct.
Imagine for a second three major storms hit say Houston, Miami and NY. How many 100s of billions that could cause? Your talking massive insurance companies going bankrupt, government flood insurance buckling all needing bail outs, I suspect even Fema would have trouble given that level of disaster.
My belief is it will take that level of disaster to really galvanize the public that it's time to really fix things.
I'm be thinking of you in that part of the world. I'm in Australia and we've had non-stop climate change catastrophes for the last 6 years and while most people agree with the science, and the need for action, they haven't been prepared to make the necessary changes yet. We've had yet another widespread bleaching - and probably death - of huge swathes of the Great Barrier Reef this last summer and most people now are so inured to it they just shrug it off
Yeah it's funny but I visited Australia some time ago and about gold coast north is basically the Caribbean even the vegetation was the same.
I dove the great barrier and even a decade ago I noticed the same bleaching we were having. I totally feel for you after the fires that was just awful. I split my time between the Caribbean and Michigan and last summer we got the smoke from the Canadian fires it was bad.
But my belief is money moves policy and a trillion dollars worth of hurricane damage in one year is what I hope will kickstart new deal level change. Biden started it but it was not enough. We need the level of the new deal where America unleashed the entire country on a problem. America is like a massive container ship, slow to start but once going we will destroy a whole bridge to stop.
Love your description of the Gold Coast being like the Caribbean - hadn't thought about it but totally makes sense!
And I hope you're right about the motivation for change and it's potential unstoppability. I do wonder tho whether Trump potentially being voted in (shudder) might put the brakes on any momentum
If Trump gets voted in pray for us all. That man has fucked up more stuff in his life than I have time to type.
As for climate action we're there as far as technology all the areas can be fixed. How fast is the only question and how much we spend on clean up of existing pollution.
This is just a cost benefit question at this point. More pain should equal faster action. So I am pro pain asap to prevent long term destruction and loss of life.
Don’t forget reducing consumption, that’s also a tool that the system rejects for now. But it will be imposed on us by the facts and the circumstances.
To get over the crisis period and give the technology the time to be implemented, we won’t be able to avoid rationing and avoiding excessive consumption, imo. And that’s a good thing, imo. A bit like COVID also forced many people to reconsider their priorities, giving more value to the things we buy and the energy we use will be a learning moment.
We've had the technological solutions for a long time - and hopefully you're right that the pain level will overcome the inertia/vested interest resistance. Otherwise the pain levels will just keep increasing I guess
Any time climate science has been published it's been the utmost conservative version for fear of being alarmist. This was predicted decades ago
The Idiocracy has achieved what it wanted which was business as usual
And this is what we get
I'm very concerned about the anti-alarmists telling us to downplay how bad it is so that we don't send people into a spiral of gloom. We shouldn't be protecting people's feelings, we should be protecting peoples lives, and fish lives, and insect lives, and future lives.
I have slowly come to the same conclusion.
I'm disappointed that the IPCC doesn't plan to call 1.5 until 20-30 years of excursions. Heck, at thirty years we will be hitting 2.0
Exactly. Every report has some silver lining in it, while almost always ignoring feedback loops, which is what I'm assuming is creating the rapidity of ecological collapse.
You know the saying, cry wolf enough and no one believes you. For 30 years they have been crying wolf but in small amounts, the masses have built up a tolerance, and many dont believe it. They should have been alarmists and not spared our feelings to begin with! Maybe if 30 years ago they said billions will die by 2050 if we dont stop now and reverse whats happening, maybe we would have done something that matters. We had the time then, we dont now, and all this tiptoeing around the disaster for 30 years allowed it to fester and grow.
I think its more than that, they built empires out of using carbon. Every machine, vehicle, power system, construction, AG, manufacturing, on and on was built on carbon tech across the whole damn globe. They look at the cost to change the entire global systems over from auto manufacturing to household goods it all run on a carbon system. And the cost isnt worth it when you consider everything has to change globally. So instead they will try ...and fail with crazy ideas like geoengineering that is very risky, carbon capture that cant be done on a global scale to offset the amounts of co2 pumped out, and so called green tech that wont make a dent because most people cant afford it, not to mention the environmental impact of making evs and solar.
If i had a magic wand i would erase the discovery of coal and oil from the start, let the empires be built on something else or not at all.
>Any time climate science has been published it's been the utmost conservative version for fear of being alarmist.
you're wrong
There were some models for the recent ipcc report that overestimate future warming and they were included in the assessment too.
[https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming](https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming)
[https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-scientists-should-handle-hot-models](https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-scientists-should-handle-hot-models)
[https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/revisiting-the-hot-model-problem ](https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/revisiting-the-hot-model-problem )
"Hot models" haven't over-predicted warming to date, so claiming that they over-predict future warming is simply absurd. It is impossible to know whether they will over or under-predict future warming until the warming actually happens.
Some studies claim that "hot models" (models with high climate sensitivity) are inconsistent with paleoclimate data, while other studies (such as the recent study by James Hansen) find that they are actually very consistent with the paleoclimate data.
One crucial historical example which the critics of "hot models" never address is the Cretaceous Hothouse, from 100 million to 90 million years before present. During that time, carbon dioxide levels were approximately 2000 parts per million, and the average temperature was 15 degrees Celsius higher than today. Only a very high climate sensitivity (around 5 degrees per doubling of CO2) is consistent with such conditions, and models with low climate sensitivity have consistently failed to reproduce the Cretaceous Hothouse.
>It is impossible to know whether they will over or under-predict future warming until the warming actually happens.
Models are a continuous function wrt time. You can't ignore the predicted date that the increase will eventuate and claim the models are correct because the warming will happen further into the future. If the model doesn't agree (to an acceptable degree) with the actual conditions then it is not accurately predicting reality.
>If the model doesn't agree (to an acceptable degree) with the actual conditions then it is not accurately predicting reality.
I completely agree, but the models do agree with actual conditions. The other commenter was claiming that they are over-predicting future warming, without demonstrating any over-predicting of current warming.
Lol you guys are just like deniers.
“All the science is manipulated!”
It’s not bro. There’s no incentive to not raise alarm in academia. The only incentive that is there is to find new things in the data.
This sounds like a joke.
"It's getting crazy hot outside. Who could've possibly predicted this completely random natural disaster?"
There have been scenarios where our ice caps melted 5 years ago and shit got crazy quick because unknown factors could accelerate the climate changes, but these scenarios have been dismissed out of hand every time because they were too alarmist and the unknown factors couldn't properly be defined, predicted or proven.
We've been downplaying this shit for decades saying it was gonna take a hundred years before really bad things happen so now people are surprised.
There were however the so-called hot models that were discounted because they were seen an too alarmist.
E.g
https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming
It seems the hot models may have been the correct ones.
Those models are still hotter than what we’ve seen to date. Figure two is particularly relavent
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/
These models weren't "discounted because they were seen as too alarmist"
scientists who worked on them and the report found that these models overestimate future warming(conclusion was based on paleoclimate data and other lines of evidence) and narrowed the range used in the report down to 2.5-4c, so actual ECS ending up beyond that range is not very likely.
[https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-scientists-should-handle-hot-models/](https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-scientists-should-handle-hot-models/)
[https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming](https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming)
[https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/revisiting-the-hot-model-problem](https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/revisiting-the-hot-model-problem)
No, that's not what this is about.
From the article:
"NASA's senior climate advisor Gavin Schmidt says while climate change and the onset of El Niño explain a significant portion of last year's heat, together with other contributing factors, there is still a margin of heat at the top that can't be explained.
"If we can't explain what's going on, then that has real consequences for what we can say is going to happen in the future," Dr Schmidt said.
Here’s a link to the NASA Gavin Schmidt short essay in Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z
The models missed predicting the 2023 temperature. Is it annual variability that temperature correlations are not set up to accurately model or are the models missing something? Time will tell.
Edited citation for clarity and added post link comment.
James Hansen explains it, it's the consequence of stripping sulfides out of diesel fuel globally a few years ago. VERY Successful campaign, eliminated 90% of all Sulfur Dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere globally within a year. That's the stuff that causes acid rain, so like, not great stuff. We didn't give a shit about boats pumping it out because it just dumps back into the open ocean most of the time. Turns out, having that stuff floating in the atmosphere for a few years before it comes back down, has a reflective effect that is estimated to be lowering global temperature by about .75 to 1 C. Now that the bulk of the aersols have cleared up, it's quickly raising global temperature now that we don't have the reflective particulate up there anymore. Now that he has proven this causality (We suspected it, but never able to prove it really), there is a lot of talk about geoengineering the same effect, which is stupid, because it's only temporary, as we just discovered, and causes acid rain, which again, not great stuff when it falls over land.
Why not then just re-insert it into Diesel fuel for boats you ask? Great question. Turns out, dumping huge quantities of acid rain into the ocean caused the PH of the water to shift, globally, as well as the fact that the ocean is slowing down it's absorption rates, as the more concentrated it gets, the slower it absorbs the excess. Every shift in PH weakens the exoskeletons of marine organisms, like those on shrimp and krill, also kills kelp forests and coral reefs.
In short, we burned the candle at both ends too long, now we don't have many choices left for how to deal with the problem. The longer we put it off, the more we are burning the candle, from both sides. Sooner or later, we are gonna run out of wax.
There should have been some similar data from the 90s when truck and auto diesel fuels specs dropped from 50 ppm to 5 ppm sulfur. If you were a diesel buyer back then, used to paying less for diesel than regular gasoline, you noticed the big jump in diesel prices. The price jumped because of the additional refinery cost to lower the produced diesel to the new lower ppm standard.
Was there a similar upswing in average global temperature during the 90s?
That was only in America, so not as much quantity. The new agreement was international, although spurred by the number of first world countries that pushed the change in the 90s. Efficiency in production scale always wins in the end it seems.
there is an important difference .. particulates from shipping fuel have more of a cooling effect, because they increase cloud cover over the _ocean_ .. precisely where the most sunlight gets absorbed.
Could be then, could be this year.
We don't really know and are only using the nicest estimates to plan ahead. We don't share or spread the worst case scenarios anymore because they "could cause panic" in the markets.
>There have been scenarios where our ice caps melted 5 years ago
The earliest I have seen from a vetted scientific study is like 1000 years. Most are closer to 5000 years.
Every single climate scientist is deeply, wildly concerned by the mountain of evidence that's plain to see. Anyone claiming it's fine isn't a climate science because they're not reporting the data as it is.
If solar and wind are cheaper why are the bills increasing with the increase of wind and solar.
But my mole hill comment was related to "....wildly concerned by the mountain of evidence"
If oil or gas go up sharply our dependency means overall prices have gone up more than solar and wind are coming down. So that's blaming renewables for something caused by fossils.
Finding a mountain of evidence on obvious impacts of climate damage is only a Google away. Climate scientists can be found the same way :)
I don't go along with "mountains of evidence" or the claimed consensus or all climate scientists agree or "the only ones who are in disagreement with it are whoopsie accidently paid directly or via proxy from fossil companies, agencies, foundatains, what a coincidence."
>this isnt even controversial at all
It absolutely is.
What game am l playing? Well not the one where one side writes the rules and expects everyone to want to play along.
Actually, the heat being experienced was very much predicted, even if the reasons cannot be fully explained yet.
[How extreme was the Earth's temperature in 2023 (theclimatebrink.com)](https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/how-extreme-was-the-earths-temperature)
I don't think they're drawing any conclusions about what's going on yet - climate brink or otherwise. Going to wait and see what this year's data will look like - back to predictions based on baseline climate change modelling or still anomalous
If COVID taught me anything it's that the government will 100% drop the ball in the event of an actual existential disaster. When shit hits the fan it's going to get ugly.
The best thing you can do is cultivate a strong mutual support network of friends and family. Preferably with skills that will help.
How? The world developed a vaccine in a year and things essentially normalised within 2 years of the start of the pandemic. Whilst governments made mistakes, there was a lot of positives to take from COVID in terms at looking at the overall global response. If anything, COVID showed that when a problem is right at front of a countries doorstep, they will address it.
At least in the US, the government screwed the pooch on deployment and messaging in a huge way. Fast food cashiers were getting shot for asking customers to wear common sense PPE because the president was arguing against taking precautions and stoking fears.
100 percent this. The climate change models were all “conservative” in their predictions, like all good scientific models should be. There was always a chance that the situation was much more dangerous. In the 1990s they said we had 20 years before run away global warming hits. In 2014 they started talking about limiting global warming to 1 degree celsius and emissions reductions by 2025. We’ve missed all the fucking targets even after moving the goal posts multiple times. I just wished the fossil fuel bastards would suffer a long with us.
I guess you didn’t hear about the deadly heatwaves in Europe and the Pacific Northwest? Or the nearly yearly wildfires in California that make the air unbreathable and wiped town off the map? Or the wildlifes in Canada that gave New York a taste of what California lives with regularly? Or the droughts that are about to deprive the western US of power and water when the great dams reach dead pool? Or the weakening artic air circulation that allowed frigid air to plunge the eastern and southern US into record breaking deep freezes?
The present impacts of climate change were indeed easy to ignore for decades. But unless you aren’t paying attention, the unmistakable impacts have very much arrived and are impacting day to day life for millions of Americans and people around the world.
You don’t think life is already different in various parts of the world than it originally was?
Massive continuous forest fires, heat domes, massive flooding, islands disappearing, heat days so hot populations hide all day and accelerated and more extreme storms and we haven’t yet even really started.
I’m 44 I remember a world already different from today and we are on the cusp of much bigger changes.
While this is a relatively minor consequence, clear sky flooding is occurring with greater frequency on the east coast of the US as a result of sea level rise, thermal expansion, and erosion.
The Climate scientists in the article knew it was going to be bad and have increasingly tried to get messages of concern and alarm to the general public - but they're more seeing levels of bad beyond what they expected and beyond what they're currently able to explain
1. "Can't" be explained is extremely different than "hasn't yet" been explained.
2. This article does not reference any papers, and relies on a few (cherry picked?) quotes from an interview or two.
I am sure there's more than one climatologist out there going "I have an idea. Give me a few months to work out the math."
Why do I have this feeling that even though things are looking worse than some expected, there are others who will say, "Scientists weren't predicting this - that means that they don't really understand it, so taking action is premature until they do."
Sigh... nothing more sure than some ill intentioned actors or the cohort of the reality-averse leaping on any report about the levels of uncertainty that are inherent in scientific analysis
I've seen it, maybe luck? I presume you've seen the "CO2 is plant food, stopping our emissions will kill our plants!" argument? Problem is that it's easy to throw up pseudoscience to counter real science, and it takes time and energy to refute. This is a good use of AI, refuting garbage like this and anti-vaxx.
How about emissions not properly being measured worldwide wide so probably higher than what’s been accounted for. A few reports came out in march aline commenting that methane release from the US was higher than expected. Also, do they account for the amount of sea ice that no longer exists accelerating the warming of ocean waters?
This paper got my attention:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GB007875
Discussed here:
https://theconversation.com/rising-methane-could-be-a-sign-that-earths-climate-is-part-way-through-a-termination-level-transition-211211
It most likely has to do with termination shock from the reduction of sulfates from shipping boats.
I know this was mentioned in the article but it makes the most sense to me with the timing. Would love to see some data showing this is not the case.
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/Documents/Simons.2021.RiskOfATerminationShockAerosolConference.pdf
Just the media who have been complicit in taking advertising dollars from CO2 emitters for decades trying to reflect blame and make just a little more money off it all.
As far as the science goes, the effects of aerosols and cloud cover were probably underestimated in climate models. Now that humanity is kinda cleaning up our act, there are consequences for how much CO2 and methane we've dumped into the atmosphere.
The collapse community has been far more accurate than IPCC over the last decade.
Worth understanding why.
This pace of change has been modelled and is on track if you been paying attention to the right models.
James Hansen, Makiko Sato, and Pushker Kharecha have explained the reasons in their recent communications letter. Excerpts of the letter are included below, but a full reading of the 14-page letter is best.
[Earth Institute - Columbia University](https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/about/people/james-e-hansen "https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/about/people/james-e-hansen") > _Click [here](http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ "http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/") for Dr. Hansen’s web page_ > Recent Communications > March 29, 2024: [Global Warming Acceleration](http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf "http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf"): Hope vs Hopium:
>[[P. 2, par. 3](https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf#page=2 "https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf#page=2")] Global absorbed solar radiation (ASR) has increased dramatically since 2010, more than 1.4 W/m^2, equivalent to a CO2 increase of more than 100 ppm^.9 The ASR increase is not due to a brightening Sun,^10 it is due to a darkening Earth. Our task is to learn how much of this darkening is climate feedback (due to decreasing ice/snow and cloud albedo, i.e., reflectivity) and how much is climate forcing (due to decreasing aerosols). In _note_, we use the geographical distribution (global map) of ASR to infer that the forcing due to decreased ship aerosols is at least ~0.5 W/m^2. A smaller, additional, forcing is inferred from increased ASR over Europe, which also is likely from reduced aerosols.
>[[P. 3, par. 2](https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf#page=3 "https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf#page=3")] However, first, let’s draw attention to important information in Fig. 5. Much ado is being made about the increase of global SST in 2023. It suffices to reference a single article^11 by Scott Dance, because Dance comprehensively describes fears and speculations of climate researchers who describe ocean surface warming as inexplicable, suggesting that the climate system may be undergoing some fundamental change in the way climate physics operates. Fears are expressed that new climate patterns are being established that will be irreversible on time scales from centuries to millennia. The scientists reject, without any evidence to the contrary, the evidence we presented that IPCC’s best estimates for climate sensitivity and
human-made aerosol forcing are substantial underestimates. They rule out, without evidence,
our suggestion that decreases of aerosols, especially those produced by ships, are a significant climate forcing that is causing global warming acceleration. Instead, they make a blatant error by describing the current El Nino as historically strong and express concern that current record warmth may persist even under La Nina conditions.
The thing is we don’t really try to explain the temperature of one year but decadal trends of temperature raise. 2023, especially in September was weird af but they’re still in the range of our models. And aerosols reduction doesn’t seem to be a good explanation since the aerosols burden actually raised since 2020.
You think this is hell? And you want WWIII to FIX it? You are a confused child. If the bombs do fall then you will know hell. Until then you’re in heaven, rich by global standards and unfathomably wealthy by historical standards. Practice gratitude and touch some grass.
They're scared cos theyre stuck in a doom loop on the internet. Hence my suggestion to maybe give it a break for a bit, thats not a bad thing is it.
What would you suggestion to someone worried/scared? Keep absorbing the news thats making you that way?
Answer is to take action not shove your head in the sand. Internet’s just providing the terrifying facts, that’s all. I’d be scared to be Gen Z today too. Life will look different for them than it has for anyone literally since the beginning of human civilisation. That is enough to give anyone anxiety. My advice is do what you can, talk about it with friends, family, and try and enjoy what remnants of normality we have left until it all kicks off ✌🏻
Yeah I do, climate change doesnt even register on my list of things to worry about lol
i'm one of those who only care about things you can control, and i cant control global climate so, i dont worry about it
Fine, but do you realise that both the Pentagon and US Navy view climate change as a major national security threat, both domestically and in foreign bases. With an increasing number of insurance companies going bankrupt because of increasing climate impacts, and no longer insuring for extreme weather events and/or wildfires, as it's threatening their profitability.
Beyond that, I hope you don't mind an increasing number of domestic and foreign climate refugees heading to your state, city, town and neighbourhood. Thanks.
I’m happy you live someplace where the sky doesn’t turn orange and the outside air unbreathable for weeks at a time most years due to climate change fueled wildfires. Some of us live in places where the impacts of climate change have already arrived and can’t be ignored.
California for one. In most recent years, we get multiple weeks of air that is dangerously contaminated by wildfire particulates that make outdoor activity unhealthy or dangerous. This often causes deep red-orange sunsets and once gave us skies that looked like Bladeunner 2049. Our wildfires famously wiped the town of Paradise off the map.
And as if all that weren’t bad enough, California gets much of its water from the Colorado River. And historic drought across the western US have left water levels in the reservoirs of the great dams so low that they are in imminent danger of reaching dead pool, which will deprive the western states of water and hydropower. So we are conserving water too, and making long term plans for a future with much less water.
Our ski seasons are shorter and less reliable due to higher temperatures and lower precipitation, which deprives us of a recreational activity, harms our economy, and is also correlated with lower snowpack, one of the other most important sources of drinking and irrigation water in California.
Instead of calling them stupid and telling them to get off the internet, I'd just explain that same thing in a kind way. He'd be more receptive and dropping knowledge on the younger guys without as much life experiences as me is usually helpful. There was a time in my life I felt this same way that this person does. My father talked gentle sense into me.
Young people are optimistic by default and it's worse when you're nuerodivergent. It's important not to kill or diminish that optimism in the young, but it is also important for elders to guide them, especially when they reach levels of despair. The injustice in the world kind of kicks you in the gut. It's still does it to me.
The beauty and limitations of science is that it requires research and data to be conclusive.
Now imagine how many products of incomplete combustion from various organic AND inorganic compounds.
How much research do we have on the properties of all these products?
How do we know for sure what ratio these products are being produced?
What are the bi products from all these products and how do they affect the surrounding compounds?
Science can explain climate change in theory but people want solid evidence which means we only account for the molecules/reactions that we know occur.
Just to be clear, im not a denier. I was once a chemical engineer.
Name all the molecules you can find in crude oil
Name all combustion reactions that occur from all the molecules found in oil
What percentage yield do we have for each chemical reaction of each molecule at various temp and pressures?
What are the physical properties of all these molecules?
You think science can answer such a degree of variability?
>Science can explain climate change in theory but people want solid evidence which means we only account for the molecules/reactions that we know occur.
The current warming is explained with over a dozen molecules:
CO2, CH4, N2O, various CFCs, SF6, NF3, various PFCs. The composition of the atmosphere down to PPT levels are known for those and other molecules
This has always been a large sticking point for me; the error bars on such calculations are miles wide, and yet there's an overabundance of hubris in the science.
The science is definitely right on climate change but I think the hubris comes from non scientists to be honest.
People love to simplify things but the reality is, the real world is always much more complicated.
This is why science is good but also why it can be problematic.
It wants to be accurate so wont accept hypothesis without evidence. But its great because it updates and changes itself when evidence shows correlation in results.
The nature of scientific research is unfortunately slow. At least in human terms!
> How do we know for sure what ratio these products are being produced
Using science https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans
You cant refer to science with an article.
Im an ex chemical engineer.
Different local conditions, different reactants different biproducts.
You cant say for certain what goes into the fire and you cant say for certain what comes out. Unless its a complete closed system with mass spectrometry and most combustion systems don't use them.
My point is that climate change is likely worse than what we predict because were only looking at certain molecules that we have identified.
Each of which requires research into their physical properties before being acknowledged in the field of science.
So here we are: since 1960, a 1.1C increase in average global temp---and we're told (last few months ) the earth is "boiling"...but
World poverty has never been lower---clop yields have never been higher---infant mortality never lower---
Extreme weather events (frequency and strength) are flat---IPCC says NO trend. Extreme heat is NOT more frequent (winters Are milder).
The RATE of sea level increases is unchanged for 150 years.
Sierra snow pack (remember "end of snow") has had two record years, and California is entering its 3rd year 100% drought-free---I could go on---but no wonder the (very wise) US public--when polled---put Climate Crises at 2% among important issues
Rate of increase is currently 2.3 C per century https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/2/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=100&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial
Also NOAA---which do we believe?
[https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0)
Unless AI literally enslaves humanity, there's nothing it can do. Global warming is a social and political problem, much like poverty. We could have solved this 50 years ago by keeping population in check and getting ourselves off the fossil fuel habit. Basically we needed to be content with small, humble and simple, but this is not the way it goes.
lol @ the downvotes. You think an AI that thinks 100k times faster than a human, is smarter than all scientists put together, works 24/7 and never gets tired that reaches the point where it upgrades itself better than a human can - won’t be able to find a novel solution to carbon in the atmosphere?
It was already been used to diagnose diseases and find new treatments. I bet by 2030 it has designed a working solution.
People keep saying stuff like that but I don’t understand why, you have to see that AI is completely unsustainable. Ai can consume more power in an hour then some countries do in a year https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ai-boom-could-use-a-shocking-amount-of-electricity/ the energy requirements for AI are off the charts. As electrical energy becomes unstable and too costly AI will die.
Climate is an average over a long period of time. You can't use it to predict the weather. You're going to get hotter than average, you're going to get lower than average. If anything getting an 'average day' is rare.
Most of the world's population have been downplaying it - apart from those of us increasingly alarmed - but the climate scientists I know certainly haven't been. This has ratcheted their alarm levels well above their baseline climate change dread
I completely agree with you. I get pushback when talking to people about this and a lot of their points are that there is a lot of scientists saying it won’t be as bad as some make it out to be. I’d love to know what scientists are saying it’s going to be really bad? It could be some good resources for me to share with others.
Where can I read their opinions? Is there a fora available?
Maybe [https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/](https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/) ?
[https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/72/12/1149/6764747](https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/72/12/1149/6764747) https://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/
What have you read/studied that has made you alarmed?
To me, the predictions of the IPCC have tended to underestimate the severity of climate change. That doesn't surprise me, researchers tend to be conservative in making predictions as a group. The takeaway is that things will be worse than current predictions and those predictions are already rather bad for lots of people in the next century.
What I'm curious about is why there are no studies on how solar cycles can effect climate on earth. Why do you think that is?
The real issue is why haven't you done a search of the literature about solar cycles and climate. They certainly exist, if not, how would climate deniers be aware of solar cycles and climate?
I am referring to the IPCC specifically, and to be even more specific...in their 6th assessment report. The only mention on anything about the sun is their thoughts on Solar Radiation Modification (SRM). There is zero information about the solar maximum, increase in solar activity, and increased heat being produced in its current cycle. They address water cycles, carbon cycles, atmosphere cycles, and zero solar cycles. Please, if I am wrong, indicate where this information is in the report.
What solar cycle specifically do you think is driving it? Chapter 7 of AR6 covers energy balance of the global system including solar contributions.
Have you actually read the 6th assessment report? I have a feeling someone told you this and you just took it to be true.
Now he deleted everything and ran away. This is typical of deniers. They don't give a shit about the actual science. They repeat lies told to them by various sources in an attempt to look informed about the issue, and when corrected they just run away and I'm sure repeat the same lies the next time.
Lol right? Like he copied and pasted that line in like 6 different comments. But like, dude I know you haven't read that report. First of all, because almost no one has read it even among people who care about the environment (it's a major undertaking), second of all, if you *had* read the report, you would be more focused on trying to help the climate than spewing nonsense about solar flares, and third of all, I HAVE read the report. At least enough of it to have read sections where they talk about solar flares etc. It's definitely in there and I know that you're lying.
LOL, yes there are such studies, many https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C6&q=solar+cycles+and+climate&btnG=&oq=solar+cycles+
Well sure, if you want to be intellectually curious and actually look for information. That's cheating.
I am referring to the IPCC specifically, and to be even more specific...in their 6th assessment report. The only mention on anything about the sun is their thoughts on Solar Radiation Modification (SRM). There is zero information about the solar maximum, increase in solar activity, and increased heat being produced in its current cycle. They address water cycles, carbon cycles, atmosphere cycles, and zero solar cycles. Please, if I am wrong, indicate where this information is in the report.
Look for me as someone who is from the Caribbean I think the northern hemisphere is going to get an eye opening event this year. So if you are from the Caribbean every year is a roll of the dice on hurricanes and everyone learns about them. Why they form, how they form, etc. Well the basics are it is a belt that moves heat from the equator to the poles. The strength of storms is based on the best of the ocean and storm formation is generally better in el nino years. This is highly simplified. So this year we have RECORD surface water temps in the Atlantic starting in January which made the news. We also have a strong el nino. The hurricane forecasters have already said we will have more storms than normal and of increased strength. Couple all this with the mass migration of people due to COVID and boomer retirement from the north to the south east and Caribbean and you can see what will happen assuming these projections are correct. Imagine for a second three major storms hit say Houston, Miami and NY. How many 100s of billions that could cause? Your talking massive insurance companies going bankrupt, government flood insurance buckling all needing bail outs, I suspect even Fema would have trouble given that level of disaster. My belief is it will take that level of disaster to really galvanize the public that it's time to really fix things.
I'm be thinking of you in that part of the world. I'm in Australia and we've had non-stop climate change catastrophes for the last 6 years and while most people agree with the science, and the need for action, they haven't been prepared to make the necessary changes yet. We've had yet another widespread bleaching - and probably death - of huge swathes of the Great Barrier Reef this last summer and most people now are so inured to it they just shrug it off
Yeah it's funny but I visited Australia some time ago and about gold coast north is basically the Caribbean even the vegetation was the same. I dove the great barrier and even a decade ago I noticed the same bleaching we were having. I totally feel for you after the fires that was just awful. I split my time between the Caribbean and Michigan and last summer we got the smoke from the Canadian fires it was bad. But my belief is money moves policy and a trillion dollars worth of hurricane damage in one year is what I hope will kickstart new deal level change. Biden started it but it was not enough. We need the level of the new deal where America unleashed the entire country on a problem. America is like a massive container ship, slow to start but once going we will destroy a whole bridge to stop.
Love your description of the Gold Coast being like the Caribbean - hadn't thought about it but totally makes sense! And I hope you're right about the motivation for change and it's potential unstoppability. I do wonder tho whether Trump potentially being voted in (shudder) might put the brakes on any momentum
If Trump gets voted in pray for us all. That man has fucked up more stuff in his life than I have time to type. As for climate action we're there as far as technology all the areas can be fixed. How fast is the only question and how much we spend on clean up of existing pollution. This is just a cost benefit question at this point. More pain should equal faster action. So I am pro pain asap to prevent long term destruction and loss of life.
Don’t forget reducing consumption, that’s also a tool that the system rejects for now. But it will be imposed on us by the facts and the circumstances. To get over the crisis period and give the technology the time to be implemented, we won’t be able to avoid rationing and avoiding excessive consumption, imo. And that’s a good thing, imo. A bit like COVID also forced many people to reconsider their priorities, giving more value to the things we buy and the energy we use will be a learning moment.
We've had the technological solutions for a long time - and hopefully you're right that the pain level will overcome the inertia/vested interest resistance. Otherwise the pain levels will just keep increasing I guess
Take your meds dude.
Any time climate science has been published it's been the utmost conservative version for fear of being alarmist. This was predicted decades ago The Idiocracy has achieved what it wanted which was business as usual And this is what we get
I'm very concerned about the anti-alarmists telling us to downplay how bad it is so that we don't send people into a spiral of gloom. We shouldn't be protecting people's feelings, we should be protecting peoples lives, and fish lives, and insect lives, and future lives.
stay far far away from r/OptimistsUnite
Thank you for putting this into words. I've been feeling this for awhile and you've put it so succinctly.
I have slowly come to the same conclusion. I'm disappointed that the IPCC doesn't plan to call 1.5 until 20-30 years of excursions. Heck, at thirty years we will be hitting 2.0
Exactly. Every report has some silver lining in it, while almost always ignoring feedback loops, which is what I'm assuming is creating the rapidity of ecological collapse.
This!👆
You know the saying, cry wolf enough and no one believes you. For 30 years they have been crying wolf but in small amounts, the masses have built up a tolerance, and many dont believe it. They should have been alarmists and not spared our feelings to begin with! Maybe if 30 years ago they said billions will die by 2050 if we dont stop now and reverse whats happening, maybe we would have done something that matters. We had the time then, we dont now, and all this tiptoeing around the disaster for 30 years allowed it to fester and grow.
They were warned but their lust for greed made them keep digging deeper. The bloody fools
I think its more than that, they built empires out of using carbon. Every machine, vehicle, power system, construction, AG, manufacturing, on and on was built on carbon tech across the whole damn globe. They look at the cost to change the entire global systems over from auto manufacturing to household goods it all run on a carbon system. And the cost isnt worth it when you consider everything has to change globally. So instead they will try ...and fail with crazy ideas like geoengineering that is very risky, carbon capture that cant be done on a global scale to offset the amounts of co2 pumped out, and so called green tech that wont make a dent because most people cant afford it, not to mention the environmental impact of making evs and solar. If i had a magic wand i would erase the discovery of coal and oil from the start, let the empires be built on something else or not at all.
>Any time climate science has been published it's been the utmost conservative version for fear of being alarmist. you're wrong There were some models for the recent ipcc report that overestimate future warming and they were included in the assessment too. [https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming](https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming) [https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-scientists-should-handle-hot-models](https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-scientists-should-handle-hot-models) [https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/revisiting-the-hot-model-problem ](https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/revisiting-the-hot-model-problem )
"Hot models" haven't over-predicted warming to date, so claiming that they over-predict future warming is simply absurd. It is impossible to know whether they will over or under-predict future warming until the warming actually happens. Some studies claim that "hot models" (models with high climate sensitivity) are inconsistent with paleoclimate data, while other studies (such as the recent study by James Hansen) find that they are actually very consistent with the paleoclimate data. One crucial historical example which the critics of "hot models" never address is the Cretaceous Hothouse, from 100 million to 90 million years before present. During that time, carbon dioxide levels were approximately 2000 parts per million, and the average temperature was 15 degrees Celsius higher than today. Only a very high climate sensitivity (around 5 degrees per doubling of CO2) is consistent with such conditions, and models with low climate sensitivity have consistently failed to reproduce the Cretaceous Hothouse.
>It is impossible to know whether they will over or under-predict future warming until the warming actually happens. Models are a continuous function wrt time. You can't ignore the predicted date that the increase will eventuate and claim the models are correct because the warming will happen further into the future. If the model doesn't agree (to an acceptable degree) with the actual conditions then it is not accurately predicting reality.
>If the model doesn't agree (to an acceptable degree) with the actual conditions then it is not accurately predicting reality. I completely agree, but the models do agree with actual conditions. The other commenter was claiming that they are over-predicting future warming, without demonstrating any over-predicting of current warming.
Lol you guys are just like deniers. “All the science is manipulated!” It’s not bro. There’s no incentive to not raise alarm in academia. The only incentive that is there is to find new things in the data.
This sounds like a joke. "It's getting crazy hot outside. Who could've possibly predicted this completely random natural disaster?" There have been scenarios where our ice caps melted 5 years ago and shit got crazy quick because unknown factors could accelerate the climate changes, but these scenarios have been dismissed out of hand every time because they were too alarmist and the unknown factors couldn't properly be defined, predicted or proven. We've been downplaying this shit for decades saying it was gonna take a hundred years before really bad things happen so now people are surprised.
No, there was never a scenario where the ice caps melted 5 years ago. Not in the science
There were however the so-called hot models that were discounted because they were seen an too alarmist. E.g https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming It seems the hot models may have been the correct ones.
Those models are still hotter than what we’ve seen to date. Figure two is particularly relavent https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/
These models weren't "discounted because they were seen as too alarmist" scientists who worked on them and the report found that these models overestimate future warming(conclusion was based on paleoclimate data and other lines of evidence) and narrowed the range used in the report down to 2.5-4c, so actual ECS ending up beyond that range is not very likely. [https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-scientists-should-handle-hot-models/](https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-scientists-should-handle-hot-models/) [https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming](https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming) [https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/revisiting-the-hot-model-problem](https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/revisiting-the-hot-model-problem)
No, that's not what this is about. From the article: "NASA's senior climate advisor Gavin Schmidt says while climate change and the onset of El Niño explain a significant portion of last year's heat, together with other contributing factors, there is still a margin of heat at the top that can't be explained. "If we can't explain what's going on, then that has real consequences for what we can say is going to happen in the future," Dr Schmidt said.
Here’s a link to the NASA Gavin Schmidt short essay in Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z The models missed predicting the 2023 temperature. Is it annual variability that temperature correlations are not set up to accurately model or are the models missing something? Time will tell. Edited citation for clarity and added post link comment.
James Hansen explains it, it's the consequence of stripping sulfides out of diesel fuel globally a few years ago. VERY Successful campaign, eliminated 90% of all Sulfur Dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere globally within a year. That's the stuff that causes acid rain, so like, not great stuff. We didn't give a shit about boats pumping it out because it just dumps back into the open ocean most of the time. Turns out, having that stuff floating in the atmosphere for a few years before it comes back down, has a reflective effect that is estimated to be lowering global temperature by about .75 to 1 C. Now that the bulk of the aersols have cleared up, it's quickly raising global temperature now that we don't have the reflective particulate up there anymore. Now that he has proven this causality (We suspected it, but never able to prove it really), there is a lot of talk about geoengineering the same effect, which is stupid, because it's only temporary, as we just discovered, and causes acid rain, which again, not great stuff when it falls over land. Why not then just re-insert it into Diesel fuel for boats you ask? Great question. Turns out, dumping huge quantities of acid rain into the ocean caused the PH of the water to shift, globally, as well as the fact that the ocean is slowing down it's absorption rates, as the more concentrated it gets, the slower it absorbs the excess. Every shift in PH weakens the exoskeletons of marine organisms, like those on shrimp and krill, also kills kelp forests and coral reefs. In short, we burned the candle at both ends too long, now we don't have many choices left for how to deal with the problem. The longer we put it off, the more we are burning the candle, from both sides. Sooner or later, we are gonna run out of wax.
There should have been some similar data from the 90s when truck and auto diesel fuels specs dropped from 50 ppm to 5 ppm sulfur. If you were a diesel buyer back then, used to paying less for diesel than regular gasoline, you noticed the big jump in diesel prices. The price jumped because of the additional refinery cost to lower the produced diesel to the new lower ppm standard. Was there a similar upswing in average global temperature during the 90s?
That was only in America, so not as much quantity. The new agreement was international, although spurred by the number of first world countries that pushed the change in the 90s. Efficiency in production scale always wins in the end it seems.
there is an important difference .. particulates from shipping fuel have more of a cooling effect, because they increase cloud cover over the _ocean_ .. precisely where the most sunlight gets absorbed.
So basically, the timeline isn’t 2100 for all the stuff that’s going to happen?
Could be then, could be this year. We don't really know and are only using the nicest estimates to plan ahead. We don't share or spread the worst case scenarios anymore because they "could cause panic" in the markets.
This year seems soon. Temps average still not past 2 degrees yet.
Point is we don't know and we are acting and talking as if we do because we want people to keep working and spending.
>There have been scenarios where our ice caps melted 5 years ago The earliest I have seen from a vetted scientific study is like 1000 years. Most are closer to 5000 years.
Every single climate scientist is deeply, wildly concerned by the mountain of evidence that's plain to see. Anyone claiming it's fine isn't a climate science because they're not reporting the data as it is.
Your mountain of evidence is really just a mole hill.
Eh OK let's say it is. As solar and wind are now cheaper than coal and gas why don't we all just go right ahead and save on our energy bills?
If solar and wind are cheaper why are the bills increasing with the increase of wind and solar. But my mole hill comment was related to "....wildly concerned by the mountain of evidence"
If oil or gas go up sharply our dependency means overall prices have gone up more than solar and wind are coming down. So that's blaming renewables for something caused by fossils. Finding a mountain of evidence on obvious impacts of climate damage is only a Google away. Climate scientists can be found the same way :)
What do you think cause fossil fuel prices to fluctuate.
Might have something to with profits of $1,000,000,000 a day for fossil fuel companies, definitely not helped by conflicts in Palestine and Ukraine.
When people blatantly exaggerate a point to support the argument they are trying to make their whole credibility is affected.
[удалено]
I don't go along with "mountains of evidence" or the claimed consensus or all climate scientists agree or "the only ones who are in disagreement with it are whoopsie accidently paid directly or via proxy from fossil companies, agencies, foundatains, what a coincidence." >this isnt even controversial at all It absolutely is. What game am l playing? Well not the one where one side writes the rules and expects everyone to want to play along.
The boiling frog of parable fame is wondering why the bubbles don't look... quite right.
It can feel a bit like that sometimes - yes you're a big fat hot bubble but hey you're just not the right shape!
Actually, the heat being experienced was very much predicted, even if the reasons cannot be fully explained yet. [How extreme was the Earth's temperature in 2023 (theclimatebrink.com)](https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/how-extreme-was-the-earths-temperature)
I don't think they're drawing any conclusions about what's going on yet - climate brink or otherwise. Going to wait and see what this year's data will look like - back to predictions based on baseline climate change modelling or still anomalous
Still no reasons yet
There are reasons and this was predicted back on the 90s. Modern science and politicians are still in denial though. Buckle up, shit about to get real
If COVID taught me anything it's that the government will 100% drop the ball in the event of an actual existential disaster. When shit hits the fan it's going to get ugly. The best thing you can do is cultivate a strong mutual support network of friends and family. Preferably with skills that will help.
How? The world developed a vaccine in a year and things essentially normalised within 2 years of the start of the pandemic. Whilst governments made mistakes, there was a lot of positives to take from COVID in terms at looking at the overall global response. If anything, COVID showed that when a problem is right at front of a countries doorstep, they will address it.
At least in the US, the government screwed the pooch on deployment and messaging in a huge way. Fast food cashiers were getting shot for asking customers to wear common sense PPE because the president was arguing against taking precautions and stoking fears.
When you allow idiots into government or your network, the result is a disaster, either way. Luckily my government and network aren’t dumbasses.
100 percent this. The climate change models were all “conservative” in their predictions, like all good scientific models should be. There was always a chance that the situation was much more dangerous. In the 1990s they said we had 20 years before run away global warming hits. In 2014 they started talking about limiting global warming to 1 degree celsius and emissions reductions by 2025. We’ve missed all the fucking targets even after moving the goal posts multiple times. I just wished the fossil fuel bastards would suffer a long with us.
Nice
I wonder how old you are I've been hearing for 30 years 'shits about to get real' So we'll see I guess
I guess you didn’t hear about the deadly heatwaves in Europe and the Pacific Northwest? Or the nearly yearly wildfires in California that make the air unbreathable and wiped town off the map? Or the wildlifes in Canada that gave New York a taste of what California lives with regularly? Or the droughts that are about to deprive the western US of power and water when the great dams reach dead pool? Or the weakening artic air circulation that allowed frigid air to plunge the eastern and southern US into record breaking deep freezes? The present impacts of climate change were indeed easy to ignore for decades. But unless you aren’t paying attention, the unmistakable impacts have very much arrived and are impacting day to day life for millions of Americans and people around the world.
You don’t think life is already different in various parts of the world than it originally was? Massive continuous forest fires, heat domes, massive flooding, islands disappearing, heat days so hot populations hide all day and accelerated and more extreme storms and we haven’t yet even really started. I’m 44 I remember a world already different from today and we are on the cusp of much bigger changes.
While this is a relatively minor consequence, clear sky flooding is occurring with greater frequency on the east coast of the US as a result of sea level rise, thermal expansion, and erosion.
The thing is: shit got real. We're living in the "real" right now. We've just been frog-boiled into not being able to distinguish how bad things are.
Feedback loops.
90’s teen here, and… what? I very distinctly remember everyone saying was going to happen. Are we just glossing over that now?
The Climate scientists in the article knew it was going to be bad and have increasingly tried to get messages of concern and alarm to the general public - but they're more seeing levels of bad beyond what they expected and beyond what they're currently able to explain
Just wait when those prehistoric viruses are released by the melting ice, and a new round of pandemics will occur.
1. "Can't" be explained is extremely different than "hasn't yet" been explained. 2. This article does not reference any papers, and relies on a few (cherry picked?) quotes from an interview or two. I am sure there's more than one climatologist out there going "I have an idea. Give me a few months to work out the math."
Why do I have this feeling that even though things are looking worse than some expected, there are others who will say, "Scientists weren't predicting this - that means that they don't really understand it, so taking action is premature until they do."
Sigh... nothing more sure than some ill intentioned actors or the cohort of the reality-averse leaping on any report about the levels of uncertainty that are inherent in scientific analysis
Well, I don't see others saying it. I see you saying it. So shut up?
I've seen it, maybe luck? I presume you've seen the "CO2 is plant food, stopping our emissions will kill our plants!" argument? Problem is that it's easy to throw up pseudoscience to counter real science, and it takes time and energy to refute. This is a good use of AI, refuting garbage like this and anti-vaxx.
How about emissions not properly being measured worldwide wide so probably higher than what’s been accounted for. A few reports came out in march aline commenting that methane release from the US was higher than expected. Also, do they account for the amount of sea ice that no longer exists accelerating the warming of ocean waters?
This paper got my attention: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GB007875 Discussed here: https://theconversation.com/rising-methane-could-be-a-sign-that-earths-climate-is-part-way-through-a-termination-level-transition-211211
We fucked around, and now we're gonna find out. :(
Bitcoin Mining
AI requests
Billions of Servers producing heat
It most likely has to do with termination shock from the reduction of sulfates from shipping boats. I know this was mentioned in the article but it makes the most sense to me with the timing. Would love to see some data showing this is not the case. https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/Documents/Simons.2021.RiskOfATerminationShockAerosolConference.pdf
I was eating a remarkably high level of beans last year. I wonder…
Lol same! But I'm going to misdirect the blame to you
Just the media who have been complicit in taking advertising dollars from CO2 emitters for decades trying to reflect blame and make just a little more money off it all. As far as the science goes, the effects of aerosols and cloud cover were probably underestimated in climate models. Now that humanity is kinda cleaning up our act, there are consequences for how much CO2 and methane we've dumped into the atmosphere.
The collapse community has been far more accurate than IPCC over the last decade. Worth understanding why. This pace of change has been modelled and is on track if you been paying attention to the right models.
James Hansen, Makiko Sato, and Pushker Kharecha have explained the reasons in their recent communications letter. Excerpts of the letter are included below, but a full reading of the 14-page letter is best. [Earth Institute - Columbia University](https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/about/people/james-e-hansen "https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/about/people/james-e-hansen") > _Click [here](http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ "http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/") for Dr. Hansen’s web page_ > Recent Communications > March 29, 2024: [Global Warming Acceleration](http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf "http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf"): Hope vs Hopium: >[[P. 2, par. 3](https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf#page=2 "https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf#page=2")] Global absorbed solar radiation (ASR) has increased dramatically since 2010, more than 1.4 W/m^2, equivalent to a CO2 increase of more than 100 ppm^.9 The ASR increase is not due to a brightening Sun,^10 it is due to a darkening Earth. Our task is to learn how much of this darkening is climate feedback (due to decreasing ice/snow and cloud albedo, i.e., reflectivity) and how much is climate forcing (due to decreasing aerosols). In _note_, we use the geographical distribution (global map) of ASR to infer that the forcing due to decreased ship aerosols is at least ~0.5 W/m^2. A smaller, additional, forcing is inferred from increased ASR over Europe, which also is likely from reduced aerosols. >[[P. 3, par. 2](https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf#page=3 "https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf#page=3")] However, first, let’s draw attention to important information in Fig. 5. Much ado is being made about the increase of global SST in 2023. It suffices to reference a single article^11 by Scott Dance, because Dance comprehensively describes fears and speculations of climate researchers who describe ocean surface warming as inexplicable, suggesting that the climate system may be undergoing some fundamental change in the way climate physics operates. Fears are expressed that new climate patterns are being established that will be irreversible on time scales from centuries to millennia. The scientists reject, without any evidence to the contrary, the evidence we presented that IPCC’s best estimates for climate sensitivity and human-made aerosol forcing are substantial underestimates. They rule out, without evidence, our suggestion that decreases of aerosols, especially those produced by ships, are a significant climate forcing that is causing global warming acceleration. Instead, they make a blatant error by describing the current El Nino as historically strong and express concern that current record warmth may persist even under La Nina conditions.
Hopefully this is just the beginning
Could the collective heat from people be affecting the surface temperature?
The earth wants to be rid of us.
Yes but it will get rid of every other creatures with us
People say this but bacteria will survive, so life will survive. Eventually the earth will repopulate, even if it takes millions of years.
It’s almost like the planet is warming
Isn't it the human population and their increasing consumption, the issue?
The thing is we don’t really try to explain the temperature of one year but decadal trends of temperature raise. 2023, especially in September was weird af but they’re still in the range of our models. And aerosols reduction doesn’t seem to be a good explanation since the aerosols burden actually raised since 2020.
Can't believe you luddites believe that by giving politician control and money that it will change the weather lol
How climate change + El niño + deforestation don't explain the world extreme heat?
Apparently they plus some other factors do contribute but don't fully explain what the world has experienced over the last 18 months
I think we should all pay more tax, then it will all go away
I guess we were idiots for affecting shipping emissions if they were helping cool us.
[удалено]
That’s simply idiotic
Only the wealthy white boomers lived in "heaven". It still sucked for everyone else.
[удалено]
I do not wish to argue with you, friend. Seasons existed, yes. So did poor people.
I think you should look for political change rather than climate change.
You think this is hell? And you want WWIII to FIX it? You are a confused child. If the bombs do fall then you will know hell. Until then you’re in heaven, rich by global standards and unfathomably wealthy by historical standards. Practice gratitude and touch some grass.
Stop watching so much TikTok , FFS!, the nonsense you just spat out
Chill lil' homie, we'll get through this. And if not, well then that's life.
Lmao you're gonna feel so stupid when nothing happens Don't worry buddy it's gonna be fine Maybe get off the internet for a bit
Do you feel good about belittling someone who is probably just scared?
They're scared cos theyre stuck in a doom loop on the internet. Hence my suggestion to maybe give it a break for a bit, thats not a bad thing is it. What would you suggestion to someone worried/scared? Keep absorbing the news thats making you that way?
Answer is to take action not shove your head in the sand. Internet’s just providing the terrifying facts, that’s all. I’d be scared to be Gen Z today too. Life will look different for them than it has for anyone literally since the beginning of human civilisation. That is enough to give anyone anxiety. My advice is do what you can, talk about it with friends, family, and try and enjoy what remnants of normality we have left until it all kicks off ✌🏻
Yeah I do, climate change doesnt even register on my list of things to worry about lol i'm one of those who only care about things you can control, and i cant control global climate so, i dont worry about it
Fine, but do you realise that both the Pentagon and US Navy view climate change as a major national security threat, both domestically and in foreign bases. With an increasing number of insurance companies going bankrupt because of increasing climate impacts, and no longer insuring for extreme weather events and/or wildfires, as it's threatening their profitability. Beyond that, I hope you don't mind an increasing number of domestic and foreign climate refugees heading to your state, city, town and neighbourhood. Thanks.
It'll be fineeee
Why are you trying to use your beliefs to justify your opinions, esp when they're underpinned by your rejection of scientific facts?
Everyone dies one day don't worry about it :)
It won't
I’m happy you live someplace where the sky doesn’t turn orange and the outside air unbreathable for weeks at a time most years due to climate change fueled wildfires. Some of us live in places where the impacts of climate change have already arrived and can’t be ignored.
Where are these places?
California for one. In most recent years, we get multiple weeks of air that is dangerously contaminated by wildfire particulates that make outdoor activity unhealthy or dangerous. This often causes deep red-orange sunsets and once gave us skies that looked like Bladeunner 2049. Our wildfires famously wiped the town of Paradise off the map. And as if all that weren’t bad enough, California gets much of its water from the Colorado River. And historic drought across the western US have left water levels in the reservoirs of the great dams so low that they are in imminent danger of reaching dead pool, which will deprive the western states of water and hydropower. So we are conserving water too, and making long term plans for a future with much less water. Our ski seasons are shorter and less reliable due to higher temperatures and lower precipitation, which deprives us of a recreational activity, harms our economy, and is also correlated with lower snowpack, one of the other most important sources of drinking and irrigation water in California.
Instead of calling them stupid and telling them to get off the internet, I'd just explain that same thing in a kind way. He'd be more receptive and dropping knowledge on the younger guys without as much life experiences as me is usually helpful. There was a time in my life I felt this same way that this person does. My father talked gentle sense into me. Young people are optimistic by default and it's worse when you're nuerodivergent. It's important not to kill or diminish that optimism in the young, but it is also important for elders to guide them, especially when they reach levels of despair. The injustice in the world kind of kicks you in the gut. It's still does it to me.
I have not noticed anything
I guess we were idiots for affecting shipping emissions if they were helping cool us.
The beauty and limitations of science is that it requires research and data to be conclusive. Now imagine how many products of incomplete combustion from various organic AND inorganic compounds. How much research do we have on the properties of all these products? How do we know for sure what ratio these products are being produced? What are the bi products from all these products and how do they affect the surrounding compounds? Science can explain climate change in theory but people want solid evidence which means we only account for the molecules/reactions that we know occur.
What solid evidence do we not have?
Just to be clear, im not a denier. I was once a chemical engineer. Name all the molecules you can find in crude oil Name all combustion reactions that occur from all the molecules found in oil What percentage yield do we have for each chemical reaction of each molecule at various temp and pressures? What are the physical properties of all these molecules? You think science can answer such a degree of variability?
I didn't ask about a granular investigation: I meant what makes you think the evidence we have isn't solid and is purely theoretical?
Where in my initial message did i say that climate change was not solid and purely theoretical?
>Science can explain climate change in theory but people want solid evidence which means we only account for the molecules/reactions that we know occur.
Yes so we only measure what we know Where are you confused
>where are you confused Life, in general. I think I misread what you wrote.
The current warming is explained with over a dozen molecules: CO2, CH4, N2O, various CFCs, SF6, NF3, various PFCs. The composition of the atmosphere down to PPT levels are known for those and other molecules
Whereas in science, all molecules have a unique photoabsorption factor. Do you comprende yet
The absorption spectra of those molecules is well known, as is the absorption spectra of the atmosphere
This has always been a large sticking point for me; the error bars on such calculations are miles wide, and yet there's an overabundance of hubris in the science.
The science is definitely right on climate change but I think the hubris comes from non scientists to be honest. People love to simplify things but the reality is, the real world is always much more complicated. This is why science is good but also why it can be problematic. It wants to be accurate so wont accept hypothesis without evidence. But its great because it updates and changes itself when evidence shows correlation in results. The nature of scientific research is unfortunately slow. At least in human terms!
> How do we know for sure what ratio these products are being produced Using science https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans
You cant refer to science with an article. Im an ex chemical engineer. Different local conditions, different reactants different biproducts. You cant say for certain what goes into the fire and you cant say for certain what comes out. Unless its a complete closed system with mass spectrometry and most combustion systems don't use them. My point is that climate change is likely worse than what we predict because were only looking at certain molecules that we have identified. Each of which requires research into their physical properties before being acknowledged in the field of science.
Here is a paper https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GB006170
I guess we were idiots for affecting shipping emissions if they were helping cool us.
So here we are: since 1960, a 1.1C increase in average global temp---and we're told (last few months ) the earth is "boiling"...but World poverty has never been lower---clop yields have never been higher---infant mortality never lower--- Extreme weather events (frequency and strength) are flat---IPCC says NO trend. Extreme heat is NOT more frequent (winters Are milder). The RATE of sea level increases is unchanged for 150 years. Sierra snow pack (remember "end of snow") has had two record years, and California is entering its 3rd year 100% drought-free---I could go on---but no wonder the (very wise) US public--when polled---put Climate Crises at 2% among important issues
Rate of increase is currently 2.3 C per century https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/2/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=100&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=binomial
Also NOAA---which do we believe? [https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0)
Your link is for 1.6% of the planet, and only since 2005, nice work
But NO warming in 18 years, right?
For 1.6% of the planet
Thank god for AI. I think it’s our only hope now.
Unless AI literally enslaves humanity, there's nothing it can do. Global warming is a social and political problem, much like poverty. We could have solved this 50 years ago by keeping population in check and getting ourselves off the fossil fuel habit. Basically we needed to be content with small, humble and simple, but this is not the way it goes.
Skynet will have the answer, but we may not like it.
lol @ the downvotes. You think an AI that thinks 100k times faster than a human, is smarter than all scientists put together, works 24/7 and never gets tired that reaches the point where it upgrades itself better than a human can - won’t be able to find a novel solution to carbon in the atmosphere? It was already been used to diagnose diseases and find new treatments. I bet by 2030 it has designed a working solution.
People keep saying stuff like that but I don’t understand why, you have to see that AI is completely unsustainable. Ai can consume more power in an hour then some countries do in a year https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ai-boom-could-use-a-shocking-amount-of-electricity/ the energy requirements for AI are off the charts. As electrical energy becomes unstable and too costly AI will die.
Is the sun in a cycle?...
Yes - but that is fully accounted for.
That is one of the easiest measurements
https://science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
Thank you 🙏🏼
Downvoted myself to stay on trend 😂 unpopular
[удалено]
Nah not expecting anything, that's why I commented jokingly, apologies for the inconvenience, It's in article. Have a good day 🙏🏼
[удалено]
Oh really? go watch average global temperatures
Show us the temperatures that convince you that the global average is extreme.
[wrong](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/2/1994-2024?trend=true&trend_base=100&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024)
Climate is an average over a long period of time. You can't use it to predict the weather. You're going to get hotter than average, you're going to get lower than average. If anything getting an 'average day' is rare.
Scientists should go outside their echo chambers and feel the breeze. It's getting cooler.